Defining the Opposition
While we're all in a mode of waiting (for Miers, Wilma, and Patrick to play out), it gives me the chance to go back to something I've been thinking about for a while. A recent post at Washington Monthly brings this problem to light in terms that are helpful. Democrats/liberals/progressives are feeling pretty good right now in the sense that not only is Bush on the ropes, politically, but so are Delay, Cheney, Rove, and Frist. But it only matters, and we can only help put the country in a position to recover from this band of hoodlums, if the public can be convinced to translate unhappiness with specific Republicans into votes for Democrats.

Every time I see new Bush approval numbers I get a jolt of glee, but it's immediately blunted by the reality that the President couldn't run again if he wanted to. Running against the President won't be easy so long as Republicans aren't running with him, and they won't be. They'll be running on what's gotten them in the majority, their perverted sense of "conservatism." As most everyone acknowledges, Bush is hardly a conservative in any sense. So what are Democrats to do? Don't worry, I'm not about to whine that Democrats need a positive message. Please. What we need is decidedly, undeniably negative. But we can't just point out the inadequacies of a few. The real trouble is a right-wing ideology that continues to coast unquestioned. Kevin Drum quotes Paul Waldman saying it this way:

Liberals may write best-selling books about why George W. Bush is a terrible president, but conservatives write best-selling books about why liberalism is a pox on our nation (talk radio hate-monger Michael Savage, for instance, titled his latest book Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder).

Indeed, large portions of the conservative movement can be understood as an effort to crush liberalism in all its manifestations. Conservatives understand that their main enemy is not a law, government program, or social condition they don't like. Their main enemy is a competing ideology, and that is what they spend their time fighting.

In contrast, liberals spend very little time talking about conservatism. They talk about their opposition to President Bush or the policies proposed by the Republican Congress, but they don't offer a critique of conservatism itself. When was the last time you saw a book-length polemic against conservatism?

Essentially, I agree, although I seem to remember Republicans writing alot of books about a certain particular President during the 90s, but one could easily argue that strategy was a political failure that backfired--President Clinton left office with high approval ratings. But Waldman is right in the sense that Republicans have successfully demonized and ridiculed liberalism to the point that their job on the campaign trail is simpler. If you can stomach it, spend a half hour listening to Rush or watching Bill O'Lielly. They do like to ridicule particular hated Democrats, but spend equal time calling into question liberalism generally. In fact, that is the primary characteristic used to abuse those Democrats: that they are in fact liberal.

We on the other hand use the logical, civil tactic of questioning particular acts of incompetence or cruelty. And there's plenty of that to earn our contemptful gaze. This might win us a few elections from time to time, but no real trending shift in public opinion will occur until conservatism has received a constant barrage of questioning, insults and ridicule as a governing philosophy.

Can this be done? Or is the die cast? Are we stuck hoping to pile up small victories and stay in office with sheer competence and efficiency?